https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8757

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIBERA** **CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E058 OF 2026** CHRISTINE AWINO ODUOR……....…..…..……..………APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………………………………………………..…...RESPONDENT **RULING.** 1. The applicant was charged and convicted for the offence of Trafficking in Psychotropic Substances Contrary to Section 4 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act No. 4. She was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 135,884,800 in default one year imprisonment and an additional sentence of twenty (20) years imprisonment. She has now filed an application seeking revision of sentence. 2. She filed an affidavit in support of his motion. The arguments raised are that the trial court failed to consider the time he spent in remand custody during the computation of sentence. 3. The applicant filed the present application dated seeking sentence review. She prayed that the time spent in remand custody to be considered during the computation of her sentence. 4. The proviso to section 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obligates the court to take into account the time already spent in custody. The duty to take in account the period an accused person had remained in custody in sentencing under the proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is couched in mandatory terms was acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in **Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another vs. Republic [2018] eKLR** and **Bethwel Wilson Kibor vs. Republic [2009] eKLR** and more recently in the High Court case of **Vincent Sila Jona & 87 others vs Kenya Prison Service & 2 others [2021] eKLR**. 5. It is therefore clear that it is mandatory that the period which an accused has been held in custody prior to being sentenced be taken into account in meting out the sentence where it is not hindered by other provisions of the law. 6. I have perused the original record and I find the trial court considered the mitigation before sentencing the applicant. The court further noted that the time the accused had spent in remand custody had specifically been considered during the computation of the sentence. 7. The upshot of the above is that the application is dismissed for lacking in merit. Orders accordingly. **Ruling dated and delivered virtually this 22nd Day of June 2026.** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **D. KAVEDZA** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Applicant Present Mutuma for the Respondent Karimi Court Assistant.